S.R.Singh. J, - (1.) Impugned herein is the notice dated 8.7.1999 (Annexure-1 to the petition) issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Etawah thereby calling upon the petitioner to show cause why should an order under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act. 1970 (In short the "Act"), be not passed against him. To short-list, the petitioner in the show cause notice has been arraigned to be indulging in criminal activities within the peripheries of the conditions referred to in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3 (1) of the Act and as many as five cases have been cited manifesting his criminal antecedents as per report submitted by the police.
(2.) The question that begs consideration is two-fold ; firstly whether initiation of proceedings for externment under Section 3 of the Act by issuing a show cause notice is contingent upon recital of material nature of allegations in the notice? To rephrace it, whether recital of the general nature of material allegations against the individual concerned is a Jurisdictional question ; and Secondly, whether it would be a sound exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with a show cause notice under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act. 1970, merely premised on the ground that the notice fails to give material nature of allegations against the notice?
(3.) Sri U.C. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner began by submitting that in view of recent Full Bench decision of this Court in B.S. Tyagi v. State of U. P., 1999 (39) ACC 321, alternative remedy would not operate as a bar and the show cause notice having taint of Illegality and invalidity should be quashed by this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence and Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. In opposition. Sri Amarjeet Singh learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the impugned show cause notice encapsulates general nature of material allegations made against the petitioner vide police report referred to therein and that it is not a fit case in which this Court should step in to exercise its extra-ordinary and discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage.;